RA Lost the ASA Case

Martin Colloms...one of the most respected long serving HiFi reviewers and main contributor to HiFi Critic magazine, reckoned to be an impartial magazine because no advertising only subscription funding has commented on this ruling on the HiFi Critic Forum as follows:

Many audio journalists have voiced their support and made written submissions but in the end the ASA has now demanded 'robust evidence' that the subjective filter properties with respect to RFI be 'proved' .
On this basis could anyone prove that one amplifier sounded better than another ?

This mill has ground away at considerable expense to all but the result is a nonsense.

this is the Russ Andrews Press Release>>>>>>>>


ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST RUSS ANDREWS AND THE HI-FI INDUSTRY
BUT ITS OWN EXPERT CONTRADICTS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULING

The Advertising Standards Authority today ruled against Russ Andrews Accessories Ltd., and by inference against the hi-fi industry, in the latest round of its investigations into the company’s claims of RFI reduction by its mains cables. However, the ASA’s own expert witness raised doubts about whether the circumstances in which there is a ruling to be made should even exist.

After many months of protracted expert witness testimony, the ASA has found against the comprehensive body of evidence gathered during Russ Andrews’ substantial testing of its cables for RFI rejection. It has stated to the company that: “The advert must not appear again in its current form. We told Russ Andrews not to imply that RFI from mains electricity was a perceptible problem or that their products could reduce mains-borne RFI, unless they held robust substantiation to show that was the case.” It is worth noting that at no time has the ASA stated that the company’s cables do not improve sound quality.

This ruling raises several very important issues: for the integrity of the ASA’s procedures, for Russ Andrews and for the wider hi-fi industry.

The complaint was made on 28 April 2009, following an earlier complaint from 2008, which also found against the company. The original investigation was fundamentally flawed, as the ASA’s chosen expert witness was an acoustician and not an electronics expert. The company believes that this latest investigation is also flawed, as during the period from April 2009 until now, the ASA has changed the wording of its requirements on two occasions. In a letter dated June 2010 the ASA had adjusted the original complaint from “the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories’ research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce RFI” to “the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories’ research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce mains borne RFI”.
…/

This subsequently changed again, in the draft ruling received on 5 November 2010, to “the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories’ research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce mains borne RFI beyond a standard mains cable which could be used to power the equipment in question.” In fact the Russ Andrews testing procedures did measure the RFI rejection properties compared to standard IEC mains cables and this evidence was submitted to the ASA. But, that aside, the ASA should not be changing the nature of the complaint to suit its recommendation. Secondly, after being asked to submit evidence to support the company’s claims, the ASA changed the nature of its request to the submission of robust evidence. Whilst Russ Andrews firmly believes its evidence is both substantial and robust, the ASA should not be changing the specific nature of the request part way through the procedures.

As part of its ruling, the ASA stated “not to imply that RFI from mains electricity was a perceptible problem”. The issue of RFI as a contributory factor to the distortion levels within hi-fi equipment and subsequent degrading of the reproduction is well known throughout the industry. The company measured an increase in distortion when RFI was applied to a component’s power supply via the mains. Russ Andrews submitted in excess of 20 references from academic textbooks on the subjects of distortion and its effect on sound, noise and how it enters a system and perception of distortion. In addition, numerous testimonials were submitted from respected hi-fi journalists. The ASA chose to ignore all these submissions, with the result that Russ Andrews can no longer talk about RFI being a problem in hi-fi; in effect putting the onus on Russ Andrews to bear responsibility for the whole industry. Furthermore, no audio company will be able to make any claims about the effect their product has on the sound without providing substantial, robust evidence to prove their claims.

Russ Andrews, Managing Director, said “This complaint against our company has been made by one person with his or her own agenda, working to disrupt the business of a long established company and in so doing also affecting the whole of the specialist hi-fi industry.” He went on to say “I do not accept the ruling of the ASA as our testing was both substantial and robust and proved the industry’s accepted problem of RFI and the ability of our cables to reduce the effect. We will be appealing against the ruling.”

In an intriguing twist, the ASA’s own expert witness questioned the validity of the whole process and the fact that we are in a situation where the ruling has been made, by saying “Had Russ Andrews come to me in the first place, I am confident that this argument with ASA would not be taking place.”

====================================================================================================================

Regardless of discussions about the merits of expensive mains cables in reducinfg RFI the wider implication of this ruling that as far as the ASA is concerned RFI is not to be mentioned as a problem for HiFi audio equipment and any claims on the audio capability of a particular product related to noise or distortion will be viewed as suspect by the ASA.

Ah well I suppose the RFI interference in the form of Radio Moscow that broke through the audio signal on the Superline when tested at my home is anon existent issue since RFI is not allowed to be a problem.

regards
Geoff

Good. Lets have, for once, some objective proof of the biggest, and most profit generating lie in hi-fi - that expensive cables make a difference.

Derry,

NAIM offers upgrades with different quality of power supplies on the basis that these power supplies make a difference to the sound.

Also NAIM have insisted for years that NACA 5 of 3m approx is essential for their amplifiers as it forms part of the output stage of the power amp. The amp can become unstable if using different cables due to inductance and capacitance differences.

Also reading on this forum people make astonishing claims about sound differences due to slight position changes of equipt, loudspeakers. use of various designs of equipt stands racks. etc etc even cables!

So poor old Russ has apparently one customer with a grieveance and the desire to pursue this indefinitely.

remember the outcome of this is potentially no claims could be made about any product being preferable/ different to a similar product.

As we all know the human is a subjective creature and can be influenced by many stimuli. even i dare add the power of suggestion.

A real can of worms this.

david

We are talking about mains cables in this instance and manufacturer should be wary about claims that are not able to be demonstrated objectively.

I would have that this was easy.

get sensitive test gear.

get a 3 m length of mains cable.

measure voltage generated due to RF.

get sexy mains cable which is shielded, shield earthed. Measure voltage generated due to rf.

Also compare and contrast the voltage signal wave form on an oscilloscope.

A very sensitive measuring device is a standard tuner.

Use the mains cable to act as the tuner aerial.

You will get a signal that the tuner will pick up.

So if your tuner can receive a signal due to rf surely your hifi equipment could too????

many phono amps have problems with rf pick up due to the sensitivity of them and they will happily send this rf through your amp.

Today it is mains cables tomorrow ?????????

I thought one thousand pound kettle cables were already covered by the "One born every minute" rule. How far do we need to go to protect idiots from themselves?

So, apart from the plug at one end and socket at the other, what improvements does a £400 Naim Powerline mains cable bring over the standard 'free' Naim mains cable? And how is this achieved?

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:

Ah well I suppose the RFI interference in the form of Radio Moscow that broke through the audio signal on the Superline when tested at my home is anon existent issue since RFI is not allowed to be a problem.

regards
Geoff

It very much was an issue Geoff and despite our efforts and meant that sadly you could not use a Superline in your system.

However, one observation we both made at that time was that the Linn T Kable was far quieter in this respect than the RA arm cable that you had at the time. Where perhaps, given the claims made about it, one might reasonably have expected it to be quieter!

KR

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
We are talking about mains cables in this instance and manufacturer should be wary about claims that are not able to be demonstrated objectively.

Far more importantly buried in this ruling is the further ruling that suppliers are 'not to imply that RFI is a perceptible problem' in for audio hifi equipment which is utter rubbish. I know from personal experience that RFI does affect the performance of audio systems.

Graham makes a good point about the NAIM powerline or for that matter the HiLine.

Just sawyour posting Peter. As you say that is a very practical demonstration that expert cable design can bring improvements.

Interesting. I have some RA stuff, and while I appreciate the quality standard to which it's constructed, I cannot, I mean CANNOT fathom ANY perceivable improvment to the sound.

I believe that speaker cable and interconnects can alter the sound, but i'm still VERY skeptical when it comes to mains power cables. I would be willing to audition the Naim powerline as I have found so far that Naim stuff does tend to do what it says on the tin. That said, I can't hear any difference between the free Naim mains lead and my £40 RA lead... I can imagine the differences are more pronounced on a reference system, alas, I do own one!

Best thing would be black and white elctrical/scientifical tests to show these claimed RFI problems....

As I've said eleshwere, it depends on how dirty your mains is. In my last house the RA leads made a big difference. When we moved in to our new house with old mains cables it was the same. However, once we put in a separate, clean ring mains, no discernible difference could be heard WHATSOEVER.

The old house was much closer to a mobile phone mast (about quarter of a mile) and with commercial users very close by. There was a big difference after 22:30 when everything became sweeter. The new property doesn't suffer such degraded mains.

I think it's a bit like window cleaning: dirty windows can be cleaned, but there's no point cleaning clean windows! Anyone for some S/H mains leads?

The interconnects make a huge difference regardless.

Loki,

I work in the construction industry,although I have never worked for a house builder one possible explanation for your and others experiences like this is that if the house builder is building a new housing estate and there isnt enough capacity in the local electric-substation, they would have to install a new electric substation.

This new substation would be just for the housing estate, so prehaps it is this, that helps to ensure that the mains is clean. I know this happends for large supermarkets sometimes, so I can only assume it happens to new housing estates too.

I guess that's one reason, why it might be worth buying a new build, just a shame they are built the size of shoe boxes!

As far as mains cables, I've heard a nordost shiva cable, and that made a difference in my mates system.

I also agree that interconnects make a difference, but personally, I dont spend a fortune on speaker cable, I just have 4 runs of 256 OFC cable to each cable. Not because, i dont think it makes a dfference, just that I dont think, given the lengths I need its worth the extra spendig £0000's compared to less than a £100

Indeed. Two 6m runs of NACA5 bought in 1997 serve me well on system A and system B has 2x 3m runs of Linn LK2O from 1985. I guess the crystaline structure of the copper should all be niely aligned by now

I well remember the time a couple of powerlines were demonstrated in my system in front of the WNPS.

At the point of pressing the play button, half a dozen jaws dropped followed by big smiles (followed in turn by a bit of a clenched jaw while I figured out appropriate numbers and costs). A fellow member turned to me making the point it was a done deal. The difference was so night and day. And I live in a modern property that does indeed share a new substation and mains problems were not normally a perceptible issue (apart from when the Christmas tree goes up...)

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
Good. Lets have, for once, some objective proof of the biggest, and most profit generating lie in hi-fi - that expensive cables make a difference.

Different cables possess different electrical characteristics. I'm sure others will be able to exlpain how the electrical properties of the cable effect the sound, I cannot. I use my ears and hear a difference.

Naim will tell you not to use less than 3.5m runs of NACA5 as shorter lengths will render the amp unstable, and that some cables are not electrically suitable for use with Naim amps - is this not objective, measured proof that cables make a difference? So if the length of cable makes a difference then surely the type of material used, the number of strands and the materials used to protect the cable from environmental influences all make a difference too.

I use Chord Signature in my system. It sounds different to NACA5. Many prefer NACA5 to anything and I certainly preferred NACA5 when I compared it to Chord Epic and QED Silver Anniversary.
I use a HiLine on my CD Player. Prior to that I had changed from the standard lavender cable to Chord Anthem. After a couple of months I went back to the standard lavender cable because the Anthem wasn't performing as well as I'd first thought. However all three cables sound different, that is perfectly obvious.

Expensive (and cheap) cables do make a difference to the sound. I have deliberately avoided stating expensive cables are better. That judgement is left to the individual.

Regards,
Steve.

quote:

Naim will tell you not to use less than 3.5m runs of NACA5 as shorter lengths will could render the amp unstable,

This is because the speaker cable is part of the output circuit, on some designs.
So not some "unmeasurable" thing.


As regards the case surely this impinges on all of the industry.
How does an ads standards monitor get to do this?
Beyond their remit?

Didn't someone do a test with identical rca phonos with different coloured outers only to find that people thought they sounded different? You only have to know about the placebo effect to understand why people think something works when it doesn't contain anything that could.

Blind listening tests under controlled conditions are the only way to tell to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Why didn't RA just demonstrate the difference to the ASA people? Surely if these differences are so substantial then anyone can hear them.

Blind testing.... Some experts have mistaken red wine for white, so that'd be pointless. It would have to be a scientific, demonstrable, repeatable test to be trusted.

Tony

If experts mistake red for white that suggests they aren't experts or that the difference between reds and whites is less than is thought. If a scientific test shows that experts aren't experts then it is just as valid as one that just back pats and says how clever they are.

I'm sure they did a test with food colouring and people thought white wine coloured red was red wine. Clearly people are lot more easily fooled than one would hope.

And therein lies the proof?

quote:

Good. Lets have, for once, some objective proof of the biggest, and most profit generating lie in hi-fi - that expensive cables make a difference.

The universe is the way it is. Science won't change the "rules". It will only enable us to anticipate, or predict, the way things might turn out.

If things turn out differently to the way that science predicts, its the science that's wrong.

Now, if we take a sample of 100 people, and ask them to listen to a piece of music through a hi-fi system, first with a piece of "wet string" feeding the electricity into the system, then using a Power-line, and 85 of them say they prefer the "wet string", i'd be happy to allocate some of my own time to audition the "wet string". If I shared the view of those 85 people, i'd buy the "wet string" providing my heart told me that my future musical happiness justified the price of the "wet string".

Science isn't alway clever enough to come up with genuine, meaningful, objective studies.

Cheers

Don

I think we are all agreed on that, at least partly. But a court is likely to ask for proof, and if scientific proof stands up to scrutiny then it is accepted. I'm sure Naim and the rest use plenty of 'sound' scientific knowledge before they give new boxes a good dose of listening to.

Tony

Anyone here old enough to remember Peter Belt?

...aligning screws in sockets and switches, colouring one end of a fuse purple and sticking a piece of sellotape over the edge of a turntable platter to disrupt the electrical charge circulating there?

No we're all teenagers who spend our time watching Glee and listening to Justin Bieber.


Yes I'm old enough to remember Peter Belt. I stopped buying every hifi comic every month one April in the early 80s when I couldn't spot the April Fools. They were all so full of nonsense as espoused by folk like Jimmy Hughes (where is he now?) it was embarrassing.

But it's not as straightforward as simple double blind testing or whatever it's called. I know I hear the same music differently from one evening to the next. That's definitely partly caused by my mood, or state of mind at the time. I'm a moody bugger. Maybe I had a bad day at work. Maybe I've been fighting with the wife. What else? Temperature? Humidity? Having had a drink or two? It's much more complex than some would have you believe. Putting a bunch of folk into a room and making judgements after an hour or two isn't enough.

All that considered, a thousand quid for that cable is out of order and anybody daft enough to buy it deserves what they get.

The full text of the ASA judgment can be read here, and of an earlier judgment here.

The ASA sought expert advice on RA's claims for PowerKords: "The expert said the design of PowerKords products rendered them incapable of having a beneficial effect on both modes of RFI: the differential mode (DM) and common-mode (CM) noise voltages and currents. "

I think the adverts were banned quite rightly. RFI is measurable - were the claims true it should have been easy to substantiate them by producing measurements showing that the RA cables pick up or transmit less RF than a standard cable.

Andrews claimed to have researched RFI for 20 years, yet couldn't produce any evidence except opinion and one apparently flawed test to back up his claims. Unfortunately the ASA code does not currently apply to websites, so he is free to make his claims online.

Vendor beware!

I wonder how many magazines that have trousered advertising revenue from RA over the years will make their readers aware of this judgment?